Appeal 2006-2721
Application 09/579,938
appealed claim 34 would have been anticipated as a matter of fact under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
With respect to the grounds of rejection under § 103(a) over Reed, the
Examiner has established that prima facie, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified the vessels or storage compartments of the apparatus
of Reed to make the stirring devices or assemblies and the spigots or
dispensing mechanisms removably coupled to the lids of the vessels and the
base of the vessels, respectively, in the reasonable expectation of removing
the same for cleaning. See, e.g., B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys.
Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“When
obviousness is based on a particular prior art reference, there must be a
showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that
reference. This suggestion or motivation need not be expressly stated.”
(citation omitted)).
We agree with the Examiner that Reed is analogous prior art with
respect to the claimed apparatus. Indeed, Reed “is reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” that is, to the
storage and dispensing of a liquid, and thus “is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659-60, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We further agree with
the Examiner that the apparatus taught by Reed would be capable of storing
and dispensing “paint” as we have interpreted this claim term above, and
Appellant has not established otherwise. We also agree with the Examiner
that Appellant’s contentions to the effect that the compartments of Reed’s
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013